yet it is certain that we are a long way from adopting death or flogging as a punishment for ordinary offences. Indeed we have well-nigh restricted legal punishment to imprisonment of some kind. Now it seems likely that before very long serious difficulties may be interposed between the law's victims and their imprisonment. A case has recently occurred wherein a first-class misdemeanant has had a considerable portion of his confinement remitted, on the plea that the punishment was injuring his health. Probably it was. Confinement, in most cases, does not improve condition; the popular belief is, that it was never intended to do so. And up to this time most of us have been under the impression that a prisoner must take his chance of the effect on his health of expiating his offence, for expiated it must be. Without passing any reflection on what has occurred (for I am not acquainted with the representations which moved the Secretary of State to pity), I feel certain that
"'Twill be recorded for a precedent,"
and that prisoners will naturally be very quick to put forward certificates that their health is being destroyed, in order to escape part of their sentences. It is to be presumed that favour will not in this matter be shown to any individual or to any class of culprits – therefore that tickets of debility or disease will be just as much sought after as tickets-of-leave.
When I first began to think of this matter, it appeared to me to be purely and entirely an innovation; but upon consideration, I find that remission on the ground of low physical condition has in past time been allowed, though not in reference to the punishment of imprisonment. When, in the military services of older days, a man was sentenced to corporal punishment, the doctor always watched the infliction of the "cat, "and could stop the chastisement if he found that it was exceeding the sufferer's physical power of endurance. The same rule which held in these cases – viz., that a sentence which was not intended to result in death or permanent injury should not be carried out to the extent of producing either of those results – may be applied not unreasonably to cases of imprisonment. But then arises the question, How are transgressors who cannot endure imprisonment without a serious breakdown of constitution to be punished at all? We shall either have to let them escape their penalties on the ground of delicacy, or to invent a new punishment, the infliction of which will not be confined to able-bodied, vigorous prisoners. A great number of our criminals are, it is to be suspected, not physically strong. Of course we must not for a moment think of letting them all loose on society, and allowing them to commit crime with impunity. Yet, on the other hand, what is to be done with them? Shall we have sanatory retreats with pleasaunces attached, sheets of water for boating, and horses and carriages for enjoying the air? Three months in such seclusion would make an agreeable and salutary change from the treadmill: and if this relaxation were resorted to once a-year, or perhaps oftener, offenders of any degree of delicacy might with such aid contrive to serve out their time. Or shall we look for some grief that shall be sharper for the moment, but of shorter duration? A rogue who should be pronounced incapable of enduring twelve months' imprisonment with hard
